DECLARATION OF MARCIA BAVERMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL With Exhibits - Revised

I am a Project Manager/Senior Engineer with Environmental Audit, Inc. (EAi). I have 31 years of experience in environmental compliance. I hold a B. S. in chemical engineering and am a licensed Professional Chemical Engineer in the State of California (No. 5089). Responsibilities include project management, air dispersion modeling, health risk assessment preparation, CEQA document preparation, emission inventories development for industrial facilities, air and wastewater permit application preparation, conducting compliance audits for industrial facilities, environmental report preparation to provide support to environmental litigation, expert testimony, and addressing RCRA compliance issues.

2015, as set forth in Errata 2, Archer decided to compress its construction activities from 74 months to
36 months - but until August 3, 2015 Archer did not disclose which of its project elements would now
overlap (see one-page chart at AR 5:140, included in Errata 6 and attached as Exhibit D), and even then

19

did not disclose any of the necessary details that would allow responsible expert analysis of the air

20

quality and health risk impacts of onsite construction equipment and the related arrivals and departures

21

of construction vehicles.

22

8.

Among other changes, AR 5:140 reflects changes in the number of months that some of

23

the original six project elements would now take. For example, Archer's original schedule presented

24

that the North Wing Renovation work would be spread over 16 months, while Exhibit D shows that

25

project element compressed into 14 months - and now would fully overlap the nearby work on the
underground parking garage/athletic fields, and the Multipurpose Facility.

26
27
28

9.

Despite the very significant changes in the construction schedule reflected in Exhibit D,

the only updated "analysis" pres ented to the City in Errata 6 consisted of "as sumptions and conclusions ,
without any of the absolutely necessary underlying data. Data in the form of Appendix C-1 and

Printed on Recycled Paper

3

Declaration of Marcia Baverman

1

Appendix C-2 to the DEIR are necessary for any scientifically reliable analysis of the amount of

2

nitrogen dioxide and airborne particles during the weeks of maximum air pollution and elevated cancer

3

risk. Those details have not been provided to the public or to the City authorities. In addition, to
determine the actual air quality impacts due to overlapping phases, the project would have to be

4

remodeled in CalEEMod.
5

10.

In Appendices C-1 and C-2 (and Exhibit C), it can be seen that when construction was to

6

be spread over 74 months, only two major elements of the Archer project would overlap in time - the

7

Underground Parking Garage/Athletic Field, and the Multipurpose Facility. In contrast, when the

8

project is compressed into 36 months, the North Wing Renovation work would now overlap those two

9

elements for fourteen months (AR 5: 140).

10
11

11.

As the first step in analyzing the impact of onsite construction equipment on airborne

toxins and health risks, one must total the equipment that is projected to be active onsite during the
elements that are planned to overlap.

12

13

12.

Emissions from arriving and departing construction vehicles are additive to those from

onsite construction equipment. As the first step in analyzing the impact of construction vehicles on

14

airborne toxins and health risks, one must total the vehicles that are projected to arrive and depart during

15

the elements that are planned to overlap. For example, in week 80, Appendix C-2 shows that 16

16

concrete trucks (Class VII) will arrive and depart each day of that week to support the onsite activities

17

for the underground parking structure/outdoor athletic fields, and another 10 concrete trucks for the

18
19

Multipurpose Facility.
13.

This step of aggregating the vehicles by Class and calculating their emissions, and

aggregating emissions of the onsite construction equipment operating concurrently on different parts of
20
21

the worksite, then leads to determining which weeks and days will have "peak" impacts as to NOx
emissions, particulate emissions, and health risks. The DEIR and FEIR present no such details and

22 aggregation for the compressed 36-month schedule. In addition, to determine the actual air quality
23

impacts due to overlapping phases, the project would have to be remodeled in CalEEMod. However,

24

new CalEEMod runs were not included in the FEIR.

25

26

14.

Health Risk Guidance. The State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard

City environmental review documents claim that the AQMD has not adopted the new

OEHHA guidance for CEQA purposes, and that the BIR correctly used the older OEHHA guidance.
Errata 5 at page 6 stated:

"Per the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) direction, the analysi
was conducted consistent with SCAQMD's Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401 and 212 and i
based on OEHHA 's Guidance Manual.from August 2003. Contrary to what is stated in this comment, th
SCAQMD has not adopted the new version of the Guidance Document for use in CEQA analyses.
According to Jillian Wong, Ph.D., SCAQMD CEQA Program Supervisor, SCAQMD is current/;
evaluating the new Guidance Manual and will start the public participation process this summer as the
develop recommendations on its use for SCAQMD CEQA analyses."
17.

Context is important; the email exchange between Eyestone and Jillian Wong

(SCAQMD) can be found at page ARO13180 in the administrative record. The actual question Eyestone
asked Jillan Wong was whether the SCAQMD had any guidance for construction health risk. The

19

AQMD has never had any guidance specifically for construction health risk, but SCAQMD has

20

absolutely adopted the new 2015 OEHHA guidance for both CEQA and permitting purposes. The

21

approved (June 15, 2015) SCAQMD Rule 1401, which follows the new 2015 OEHHA guidance can be

22

found on the SCAQMD website. Therefore, while an applicant does not have to offer a construction

23
24

HRA, if an applicant volunteers to provide one, the HRA must use the most current scientific data.
18.

Furthermore, OEHHA's Toxic Hotspots Program Guidance Manual of February 2015

states "local air pollution control districts sometimes use the risk assessment guidelines for the Hot
25
26

27
28

Spots program in permitting decisions for short-term projects such as construction." (Page 8-18 of
February 2015 Guidance.)
19.

The Archer FEIR uses scientifically outdated data used by OEHHA in guidance

promulgated in 2003, but superseded by Guidance OEHHA promulgated in 2015. Applying the updated

Printed on Recycled Paper
5

Declaration of Marcia Baverman

1

OEHHAGuidance could increasethe cancerrisk up to 10 times comparedto the old method for

2

"sensitivereceptors",and would increasethe cancer risk of due to constructionby three times for the

3

4
5

actual student populationat Archer.
20.

I have examinedthe "Archer School For Girls Cancer Risk Contour"Diagramin the

DEIR (AR 7564.) A copy of this is includedas Exhibit B. I have comparedthis to the locationof
temporaryclassroomsset forth in an applicationsubmittedto the City July 24, 2015. (AR 118:13188.)

6

This location map is includedas ExhibitE. From comparisonof the two documents,even using the

7

incorrectDPM contourcalculationsused by the DEIR, it appearsthat approximately8 of the modular

8

classroomswould be in the area exposedto significantlyunhealthfulair qualityconditionsduring

10 concentrations,and thus the cancer risks to schoolchildrenin those buildingsduring constructionhours,
would be even higher than those shownon the diagram,and higher still when the updatedbreathing
11
rates and ASFs publishedby OEHHAare incorporated.
12

21. Similarly,I have comparedExhibitA to ExhibitB. Even using the incorrectDPM
13 contourcalculationsused by the DEIR (AR 115: 13046-13047),it appearsthat elderlyresidentsin some
14 of the apartmentsimmediatelyadjacentto the Archer worksitewouldbe exposedto significantly
15 unhealthfulair quality conditionsduringconstruction,without adequatemitigation. Under the
16 compressed36-monthschedule,the ground level concentrations,and thus the cancerrisks to elderly
17 adults in those buildingsduring constructionhours, would be even higher than those shown on the
18
19

20
21

diagram,and higher still when the updatedbreathingrates and ASFs publishedby OEHHAare
incorporated.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoingis true and correctto the best of my knowledgeand
is executedon November \~ , 2016 at Placentia,California.

I am employed by Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 2200 Pacific Coast
Highway, Ste. 318, Hermosa Beach, CA . On November 14, 2016, I served the within documents:

DECLARATION OF MARCIA BA VERMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

D

7

8
9

10

11

r--,/"VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY. I enclosed the above-referenced document(s) in an
L::j envelope or package designated by an overnight delivery carrier with delivery fees paid or
provided for and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) listed below. I placed the
envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized
drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.

12
13
14
15

VIA UNITED STATES MAIL. I am readily familiar with this business' practice for
collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in
the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with
postage fully prepaid. I enclosed the above-referenced document(s) in a sealed envelope or
package addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) as set forth below, and following
ordinary business practices I placed the package for collection and mailing on the date and at
the place of business set forth above.

D

VIA MESSENGER SERVICE. I served the above-referenced document(s) by placing them
in an envelope or package addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) listed below and
provided them to a professional messenger service for service . (A declaration by the
messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained in the Declaration of
Messenger below .)

16
17

18
19

20

VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept
service by fax transmission, I faxed the above-referenced document(s) to the persons at the
fax number(s) listed below. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of
the record of the fax transmission is attached .
VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE. I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be sent to
the person(s) at the electronic address(es) listed below.

21

22
23
24
25

26
27
28

I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court whose direction the
service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct. Executed November 14, 2016 , at Hermosa Beach, California.